Recommended by Readers | 
Asterisk Denotes Breaking News |
Call for Action America hosts Front Royal rally to air grievances, concerns
|
By Preston Knight -- pknight@nvdaily.com
FRONT ROYAL -- The party's over, but the best times are yet to come.
That was the message Saturday in front of the Warren County Government Center, where dozens of Shenandoah Valley residents descended for what was pegged as a call for action. Recent tea parties served the purpose of getting the government's attention that people are frustrated with the direction of the country, and the next step is to take action, said Tim Ratigan, founder of Front Royal-based Call for Action America.
The activity started with the rally Saturday, where speakers aired their concerns and opinions, people held up signs and wore T-shirts they made and tombstones stood watch almost out of view along the road. The tombstones, made by Shenandoah County residents Suzanne Curran and Ken Cruise, were to represent things that are perceived as dead, and read such things as, "Here lies small business in U.S.A.," "Jobs" and "U.S.A. Constitution."
Front Royal resident Ed Joslin wore a box on his head that read, "Cut taxes." He told the crowd he was disappointed that he didn't see any children or grandchildren in attendance, and that if the country wants to get back on the right track, it needs to start by doing something at the family level.
Ratigan said he wished there was a bigger turnout for the event -- at its peak, there may have been about 50-60 people -- but every person who did attend matters. Reiterating something he told the crowd in his opening remarks, he said the call for action requires an approach of getting every person, then every town and then every state involved.
"You've got to start small," Ratigan said.
During the next year, he said the plan is to go around Virginia, and to the various Congressional districts, to find Constitution-minded people who can represent the public. During his remarks to the rally's audience, he said replacements must be found by next Election Day for representatives in the second, third, fifth, eighth and eleventh districts.
"Pack your office up, rent storage [space] and prepare to turn your keys over to a real leader," Ratigan said of the current elected officials in those districts.
If the right candidate cannot be found, he said that person will be recruited and trained.
"We shall return America to the people," Ratigan told the crowd. "These are not empty promises."
Among those pledging their full support to the cause was Warren County resident Berkley Pearson, who discussed briefly his concern about losing his right to bear arms.
"I'm afraid our rights to arm ourselves are slipping away," he said.
For Saturday, at least, nobody could be held back from packing whatever heat they wanted. For the most part, it came in the form of signs -- "Hands off my health care," "Socialism isn't cool" and "You can't spend your way out of a recession" among them.
The message was clear -- while the party's over, the action is just getting started.
"We have to put everyone on notice," Ratigan said to the crowd. "The Republic is not dead."
I am surprised that Ed Joslin was surprised that there were no kids or grandkids at this rally. Quite frankly, I wouldn't take my kids or grandkids to something like that. One can never trust that it will be a civil gathering nor can one trust that the language is appropriate for kids. Kids are best left out of this.
I'm surprised this group was not around sooner.
We really needed a group like this to voice their opinions when the last administration was in office. A record national deficit, horrible foreign policy, a homeland security embarrassment (katrina), a ridiculously named and unconstitutional "patriot-act", a failing economy, a falling dollar, record oil prices, and the most unpopular administration in the history of our great country. All while invading a country to search for the WMD's that posed an imminent threat to our borders, which (oops) turned out to not really be there in the first place.
Thank goodness this group has come to action NOW, when we need them the most.
Ratigan is a farce attempting to create a cult of far right wing followers eager to eat their own by pushing the same tired old rhetoric expected from evangelical cultists against everything. Who really controls the Republican Party? Is grass roots anger now the driving force in politics? Is this a wise winning strategy for Republicans? At 11:15, I counted 39 people watching Ratigan read his boiler plate speech that was filled with "sacred" this and "sacred" that, followed by Kim Bishop who wants her god in charge of everything, including "un-teaching public school lies" followed by Suzzanne Curran who began her speech with "Hey, Christians". I thought folks landed at Pilgrim Rock to escape religious persecution in England. Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, speech, and separation of church and state. According to Ratigan, Bishop, and Curran, if there is going to be a god in charge of everything, why can't it be my god and not their god? Can you feel me?
Ratigan wants to reorganize the village to suit the village idiots?
I'd love to know where in the Constitution Min Gent finds the words "separation of church and state". It was actually Mr. Jefferson who uttered those words, of course he meant that Government should let people worship as they pleased, not that God had no place in government.
Jefferson declared that religion is deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support.
However you may take Jefferson's faith, he very much believed that God should be in government, schools and life, and most of our other Founding Fathers specifically called ours a Christian Nation. So sad that the facts upset you, but they are what they are.
"The only foundation for useful education in a repubic is to be laid in religion." THOMAS JEFFERSON.
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God?" THOMAS JEFFERSON
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." JAMES MADISON
If we don't start teaching our children that they are more than animals, created by God and more than the collective our way of life will vanish, so yes anyone out there please "un-teach" your children the lies of the public education system.
"The Republic is not dead."
Really? Because all of those gravestones they surrounded themselves with would suggest otherwise. That might also explain the lack of children in attendance.
I have been to five of these events, including two in Front Royal, and the one in D.C. I have yet to see anything but a civil gathering. These are law abiding citizens who simply want our country to adhere to the constitution and regain our freedoms that it guarantees. They also want our government to stop spending us and our children and grandchildren in to poverty. If I had children, I would have taken them, and they would have not heard bad language, or seen anything except a peaceful gathering. In fact, children likely hear and see much worse at school and elsewhere.
Kim Bishop is 100% correct in her comments about God (not "god") and the statements our founding fathers made concerning the necessity of God in government.
Hey Bishop:
The same Constitution that gives you the right to peaceably assemble in the Warren County Government Center parking lot also gives the rest of us (ok, and you too) freedom to practice our religion. Convenient of you to forget these small details when it suits you.
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. Didn't Thomas Jefferson own slaves? Jefferson was a mere mortal and wasn't infallible after all? Surprise, surprise!
"so yes anyone out there please "un-teach" your children the lies of the public education system."
although as an anti-socialist, I am sure you send your kids to private school right?
Furthermore, I am confident that Berkley Pearson avoids the socialist-stigma of hunting on public land, which is clearly a socialist value. What's next? Public apple groves?
Far be it from me to jump on any side of this, but this is what I know.
At least they are doing something. If we are not satisfied with how things are, we must make our voice heard. Maybe they don't speak for you, or me, but they have a right to be heard.
Our leadership has forgotten their purpose. From the Board of Supevisors to Congress, no one is hearing whats being said. Disagree with them, sure, but realize that without people like them (willing to speak out) we would be under the rule of a tyranical government.
Well, I am not one that typically finds myself on the side that Ms. Bishop is on, but here's how I feel about this...
With regard to religion, the Founding Fathers seemed pretty clear that they took no issue with our nation being a Christian nation. The difference between us and where we came from was supposed to be that we wouldn't persecute anyone for differing religious views and for the most part we've held true to that as a nation.
Now I am certainly of a more liberal mindset than Kim (you don't mind me calling you Kim, right? ;) ),so as far as schools are concerned I offer a bit more leeway with my views.
I'd have no problem removing reference to God and prayer and such from our schools IF we could somehow keep from losing the core values that religion teaches us from our schools and children.
I it too big of a coincidence that our society and our youth have lost their moral compasses in almost complete unison with this "War against Christianity" that is seemingly being waged in this country.
On almost any other topic I would probably find myself at odds with this "Call for Action America" group, but not on this one...
Your always welcome to call me Kim, Irishman. You're one of the few who have ever taken the time to have a civil discourse with me, even though we often disagree. I appreciate your words of support (at least on this issue). ;) I'm sure we'll have many more opportunities to disagree in the future.
blessings
AMEN!!!!
Bishop stated she wanted children to unlearn "public school lies". Does Bishop want the science curriculum in public schools to be written in deference to religious beliefs? Does Bishop quarrel with modern biologists, geologists, astronomers, paleontologists, and chemists? I dare say she has no quarrel with math, language, literature or phys Ed.
If Bishop insists that life is the creation of a god, not the happenstance consequence of random occurrences, what do we do when man creates life in a test tube? Does he become a god?
Min Gent,
I would like science books to give both arguments about creation, uniformitarianism and catastrophism. Modern biologists, geologists, and paleontologists are questioning many of Darwin's conclusions and since Science is always changing, always being questioned (by experimentation) why are public school science books stuck in the theories of the past. Darwinian evolution has never been proved into law and is actually being disproved often.
Man has never created life in a test tube, they have simply taken the building blocks of life and combined them outside of the natural order of things. I'm not afraid of teaching my children evolution, I have given them both arguments and it will be up to them to decide what they believe. Do you believe in only indoctrination? I believe school should be about giving facts and letting people decide on their own, but the public schools do not offer differing opinion.
I'd like to know how you judge right from wrong, Min Gent, if you don't believe in a higher power. Where does you morality come from or do you have none. Do you consider murder, suicide, theft, rape, child molestation or any other criminal activity wrong? If we are just a bunch of random happenstances who's to say what is right or wrong or that anything is wrong. There must be something more than ourselves otherwise we are no better than animals and should behave as such. Awaiting your reply.
One rule encapsulates everything needed for people to be moral beings. That rule is the Golden Rule; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Those who cavalierly reject the theory of evolution as not adequately supported by facts seem to forget their own theory is supported by no facts at all.
Creationism's latest face is just like its earlier face, only now thinly disguised with a fake mustache. Failing to demonstrate the scientific credibility of their views, creationists increasingly retreat to their standard fallback strategy for undermining the teaching of evolution: misrepresenting evolution as scientifically controversial while remaining silent about what they regard as the alternative. This move represents only a slight rhetorical shift. From the Scopes era onward, creationists have simultaneously employed three central rhetorical themes, sometimes called the three pillars of creationism, to attack evolution:
· That evolution is unsupported by or actually in conflict with the facts of science.
· That teaching evolution threatens religion, mortality, and society
· That fairness dictates the necessity teaching creationism alongside evolution.
The fallback strategy amounts to substituting for creationism the scientifically unwarranted claim that evolution is a theory in crisis.
"Academic freedom" was the creationist catchphrase of choice in 2008 when Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindall signed the Louisiana Science Education Act. Other bills invoking the idea were introduced in Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, and South Carolina. As of November 2008, all of these bills were dead or stalled. The Louisiana act is under challenge in federal court as unconstitutional according to the 1968 US Supreme Court decision Epperson v. Arkansas.
The appeal of "academic freedom" as a slogan for the creationist fallback strategy is obvious. Everybody approves of freedom, and plenty of people have a sense academic freedom is desirable, even if they do not necessarily have a good understanding of what it is.
Regarding evolution as fact or fantasy, one only has to visit the nearest kennel and view the wide diversity of dog breeds available today, from Chihuahua to English Mastiff, all descended from canis lupus, the common grey wolf.
Evolution is a well-accepted scientific fact. Millions of fossils show that life has existed for billions of years and changed over time. When considering the sweep of cosmological history from the Big Bang to the evolution of life on Earth, no one objects to most of it. Everything is OK until the apes stand up, subverting the myth Adam was made from clay and Eve from his rib.
Evangelicals tenaciously believe your lineage is what determines your worth. Their god did not create people from slime. It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. Evangelicals are people who are so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds.
Bulletin, this just in: The world is round and the earth circles the sun. What other wonders await the curious?
Typo corrections to previous post;
2nd bullet point remove the letter "t" from "mortality", changing the word to "morality".
Change "November 2008" to "November 2009".
You sir or madam are arguing over nothing. I do not fear evolution, so I don't see why you fear creationism. Both are simply unproven beliefs borne upon facts both sides can argue. There is massive evidence for a young earth and many arguments against the fossil record. However, on a blog is not the place to argue it. You will never change your mind and I will not change mine. However God chose to create the earth whether through your unproven way or my unproven way I believe he did. I do not ask you to believe what I believe. However, when there are two arguments (and creation is as valid as Darwinism) why not put both forward and let the facts play themselves out. If you are correct then most everyone should follow your view. You should not fear the other side.
My argument for "unteaching" children the lies taught in public school have nothing to do with science, but more to do with their individualism. Nationalized tests and pigeon holing children into categories only stifles individual personalities. Not every child will be a scientist or mathematician. Some will be artists and musicians. Some will be pastors and manual laborers. We need to uphold the lowly as well as the elite, and until we stop teaching our children that they are simply accidents and worth nothing more than the primordial ooze they climbed out of they will never reach their full potential.
I've tried to answer your questions, and I am waiting for my answer about morality. Do you have it? And if so where does it come from, because if we're nothing more than the highest form of evolutionary ooze why should we care at all about our fellow man. Survival of the fittest should rule. If we're nothing more than animals can we eat our young? Kill at will? Take what we want? Please give me an answer.
One more thing, Min Gent, you say that evolution is a well-accepted scientific fact (I'm assuming you mean Darwinism), but if you look way back in history you probably know that it was once a well-accepted scientific fact that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. Funny thing, science, one day the scientific know-it-all's are sure the earth is flat and poof some new piece of evidence comes forward to prove it wrong. When Darwinism is proven a law, using the scientific method then you'll have me, but as scientists are learning more about DNA and the human genome it seems that Mr. Darwin's theory is becoming quite incorrect, kind of like global warming. BTW I do know that the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun. I also know that life evolves, I just don't accept the premise that species evolve into other species (there is no proof in the fossil record for that.) Your arguments would be better served if you left the grade school insults back in grade school.
I believe you stated evolution is only a theory, it is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty - above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So, when scientists talk about the theory of evolution ( or the atomic theory, or the theory of relativity, for that matter ) they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the "theory" of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the "fact" of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for tell-tale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. The atomic bomb validates physicists conclusions about particles we can not see.
One of the core principles involving scientific theory is that a theory can be modified when new evidence is uncovered. As Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and others investigated the universe around us their discoveries could be codified into laws of nature. Collectively, they were able to demonstrate the planets, including our earth, were not embedded in "crystalline spheres" that carried them around the earth-centric universe. For publishing his observations, Galileo was persecuted by the catholic church for blasphemy and threatened with death unless he recanted.
Your second contention is Darwin's "theory is becoming quite incorrect".
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990's the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, they found none. Other independent surveys have been similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science, and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
I believe Bishop stated she doesn't "...accept the premise that species evolve into other species (there is no proof in the fossil record for that.) "
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is "Archaeopteryx", which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny "Eohippus". Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as "Ambulocetus" and "Rodhocetus" helped to make that transition.
Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between "Lucy", the "Australopithecine", or "Ardi", the "Ardipithecus", the newly found new kind of possible ancestor on the path leading to modern humans. The "Ardi" fossil is remarkable for walking upright on two legs and having an opposed big toe, useful for grasping, and a wrist not suited for knuckle walking.
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that "Archaeopteryx" is not a missing link between reptiles and birds - it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
Bishop presents her objections as if they were newly discovered evidence refuting the huge repository of discoveries used by science and scientists to formulate their theories. Instead, Bishop is merely resurrecting the same nonsensical arguments best demonstrated with the circular illogical observation if children descended from adults, why are there still adults?
Well, since all of my arguments are "nonsensical" I guess there is no longer any use of us debating. Your faith in science is as strong as my faith in God. While I tried to answer your questions you simply disregard mine. Whether in 6 days or 6 million years I still believe God created the earth. I still believe humans are more than beasts and my faith will not be shattered either way. Science is only true until it is disproved and God can never be proved or disproved, but both are based on faith and believing in something that cannot be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no point in arguing because both of us are holding fast to our religion (yes science is a religion). I do wonder though if you will ever even attempt to answer my questions, but since they cannot fit into any test tube I guess you just think they're silly and worthless. Even though I know you think me stupid I will be praying for you. Even if you don't believe in God he is still there. May he bless you.
Yes, your arguments are nonsensical. Science is not a religion or a "faith" based set of knowledge that exists only because someone believes in a supernatural reason for its existence. Science is not explained by "magic".
As always in the contentious history of evolution education in the U.S., the devil is in the details. Evangelicals want laws specifically targeting the teaching of evolution in public schools. These laws make no sense because lurking in the background is creationism and the rejection of a scientific explanation of the history of life in favor of a supernatural account involving a personal creator and the use of powerful magic to explain the unknown.
Creationists have long battled against the teaching of evolution in U.S. public schools and their strategies have evolved in reaction to legal setbacks. Indeed, nothing about these attempts to dictate educational curriculums makes any sense except in the light of religion inspired creationism. No longer able to keep evolution out of the science classrooms of the public schools, creationists have begun to portray creationism as a scientifically credible alternative, dubbing it creation science or scientific creationism, or intelligent design, obviously inspired by a particular literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.
So, my message to you, Bishop, is keep your religion to yourself and allow others the freedom of choice to keep their religions to themselves.
The day you stop trying to interject your private religious beliefs into the everyday public lives of others will be the day the contentiousness ends.
Min Gent doth protest too much, me thinks!;)
There is a familiar pathology to this "call to action" movement. They are mimicking the John Birch Society’s “ruthless prosecution” of its own ideological war which often mimicked the tactics of its Communist enemies.
The "call to action" rally's antecedent can be found in the early 1960s, when the radical-right hysteria carried some of the same traits we’re seeing now: seething rage, fear of minorities, maniacal contempt for government, and a Freudian tendency to mimic the excesses of political foes.
As Ratigan, Bishop, and Curran constantly liken the president to various totalitarian dictators, it is they who are re-enacting Stalinism in full purge mode.
Freedom of religion does not allow others to impose their viewpoints over yours by manipulating the legislative, judicial, or administrative processes.
Vigorous debate usually reduces ignorance into silence.
"re-enacting Stalinism in full purge mode"? Are you kidding me?!? Do you even know what that means?! Please tell me who any of us has murdered. Stalin was a mass murderer and total lunatic. Whether or not you think us "loony" we have neither coerced, forced, intimidated or any other such thing used by the Stalin and the communists. If you believe in vigorous debate perhaps you should quit trying to stifle the ideas and arguments of those with whom you disagree. All I have ever done is use my first amendment right to put forward my beliefs. If you disagree you use your first amendment right to put forth your beliefs and then people may choose between them. Quite honestly I am sick and tired of those of you who gladly use the same means as me to put your opinions forward and then tell me to shut up and keep to myself. The progressives have manipulated the legislative, judicial and administrative process far more than any other group, destroying the fabric of our society in the process. You may not like what I have to say, but you can be assured I will speak my mind until the day comes that the first amendment is done away with. Bush, Obama, left or right both sides have been taking away our rights for much longer than I've been alive. Perhaps instead of trying to be so high and mighty by thinking only you have the right to speak out maybe you should heed my words...my TRUE words from the October 31st rally which were that the problem with America is not Obama's fault or Bush's fault or the right or the left but the fault of US as Americans who have become apathetic and lazy. Yes, people that is what my speech was about, and while I do believe that our loss of God is the problem it doesn't negate the problem and that is unless we put aside this Republican vs. Democrat crap our Country is doomed. Instead of whining and moaning at me why don't you get off your butts and do something...at least Mr. Ratigan, Mrs. Curran and myself are trying to effect change.
No, Ms. Bishop, it is you who manipulate the facts to fit your argument. I listened to your speech at that phoney-baloney call to action deal. Is that what Jesus would have said? Your tin foil hat looked lovely in the sunlight. Reminded me of a halo.
Yes, Tess that is exactly what Jesus would say. "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt. 4:17 "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters." Matt 12:30 "The things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man (woman). For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man." Matt 15:18-20 "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. And a second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Matt 22:26
If we, as a nation and individuals, do not turn back to God we are doomed. All of our original laws came from the 10 commandments. And if you look at the 10 commandments the first three (or four depending on which list you look at) talk about putting God first, which then leads into the last seven (or six) which talk about how we should treat our fellow man. Believing in something higher than ourselves allows us to help those around us. Teaching our children that they are no more than animals is destroying them, and making them feel entitled to anything they want is destroying the foundation of our country.
Please let me know which facts I have manipulated to fit my argument. I cannot ever learn to correct my mistakes if they are not pointed out. Considering my whole speech was based upon the quotes of our founding fathers I would be interested to know your interpretation. Also, thanks for your kind words. Since I wasn't wearing a tin foil hat I guess you must have seen a halo. Maybe God is trying to tell you something! Have a good day.
Evangelical right-wingers are basically good people obeying the golden rule. Nonetheless, they will spout chapter and verse, molding the facts to suit the argument, and having done so, then self-proclaim their patriotism, also devoid of supporting facts or actions. Merely standing on a soap box while yelling at the world isn't proof of patriotism. It suggests fanaticism when any opposing voice is met with escalating verbal hostility. The idealism "we are here to save you" has degraded into a seething rage of far-right bullying of anything and anybody not like them; minorities, different religious beliefs, and political foes are your special targets. Coping with your personal demons should be your number one priority.
Bishop, for all your certitude, you are as utterly confused as the rest of us about who it is we’re fighting in government and to what end. Simply put, most of the time we don't know what you're talking about because it is wrapped in the jargon unique to your personal religious viewpoint shared only by a small minority wishing to impose its views on the unwashed majority.
I think the outcome of the recent elections and the disenfranchisement with Obama and the congress shows that I am not in the minority. As I asked Tess, please tell me what facts I have molded to suit my argument. Will any of you ever answer a direct question put to you? The only people trying to "save" anyone are the progressive, liberals running (ruining) the country. When have I ever bullied anyone? I don't care what race, creed or sexual orientation you are, that is between you and God, but I do believe in right and wrong and I do believe our Constitution should be interpreted as it was intended.
What personal demons do you think I'm struggling with? I don't know of any. I don't hate you or anyone else on this blog and I am at peace no matter how things turn out, but I'm not going to sit quietly by and let everything I've ever known go up in smoke just so people like you don't call me names. In fact every time you guys call me a tin foil hat wearer, or a right-winger or other name you choose I get a kick out of it. It means I've gotten to you. How much fun is that!? :)
I think you don't know what I'm talking about because you don't want to listen. I'm waiting for answers to my questions. Min Gent hasn't answered. Tess hasn't answered. Whooppee never answers and I bet you won't answer either. There is one certain way to ensure that I don't impose my views on you...quit reading what I write. But please let me know the facts I've gotten wrong first. I'll be awaiting your reply.
Evangelical subculture conservatives are beyond crazy, they reject facts as a matter of faith, believing the earth is 6000 years old and Moses gave pony rides to children on the backs of dinosaurs. People who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about values.
Ms. Bishop asks why are human beings called animals?
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. I was awake in my high school sophomore biology class when Mr. Hawkins began teaching the basics, beginning with the classification system created by Carl Linnaeus, a 16th century Swedish botanist used to identify the organization of living things. Charles Darwins work led to changes in Linnaeus classification system to improve classification consistency with the Darwinian principles. Much later, the category of "Domain" was created to precede 'kingdom". Domain has three categories and refers to bacteria, archaea, or eukarya life forms.
Kingdom has two categories, plant or animal. Simply put for all to understand, the classification process begins with the determination of which kingdom does a living organism belong, plant or animal? Assuming you believe human beings are living organisms, would you say human beings are plants or animals?
Sorry Min Gent you are wrong, I never asked why are humans called animals, I know why humans are called animals...because science says so. My question to you was are you moral, and if so why. If we are the highest evolution of ooze then why shouldn't we be able to do what ever we want to whomever we want, whenever we want. The only reason to believe anything is right or wrong is because there is a higher power holding us accountable. I say human beings are separate from the animals, created expressly by God. You can disagree if you please. God Bless you.
Leave a comment